BRIGHT GOLD LTD v. MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

BRIGHT GOLD LTD v. MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

The court found that Centaline, via its agent Wong, repeatedly misrepresented the extent of the roof forming part of Duplex B and that Mega Well relied on that misrepresentation; Centaline acted as agent of Bright Gold for marketing and communicating roof information so Bright Gold is vicariously liable; Mega Well is entitled to rescind the PSPA and SPA and to damages in lieu (HK$3,050,000) as alternative; WKLL did not breach their duty of care and Mega Well's counterclaim against WKLL was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 54
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action) and 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Bright Gold Limited; Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim): Mega Well Development Limited; 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Centaline Property Agency Limited; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Woo Kwan Lee & Lo
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 January 2019
Case Number
HCA2194/2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Action Sale and Purchase of Property (misrepresentation, Rescission, Rectification) / Judgment (high Court, Court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for Mega Well on counterclaim against Bright Gold and Centaline; SPA rescinded; Bright Gold's original claim dismissed; Mega Well's counterclaim against WKLL dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Rescission, Rectification, Solicitor Negligence, Damages, Agency Liability, Real Property Boundaries, Misleading Conduct
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Property Law Tort Agency Professional Negligence Equity (rescission) Conveyancing Misrepresentation +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bright Gold Limited

Plaintiff (original Action) and 3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Mega Well Development Limited

Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Centaline Property Agency Limited

1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Woo Kwan Lee & Lo

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Action Sale and Purchase of Property (misrepresentation, Rescission, Rectification) / Judgment (high Court, Court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether estate agent Centaline (through Wong) made a misrepresentation as to extent of roof sold with Duplex B
  2. 2 Whether Mega Well relied on that representation and suffered loss
  3. 3 Whether Bright Gold is liable for the agent's misrepresentation (agency by implication)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Centaline, via its agent Wong, repeatedly misrepresented the extent of the roof forming part of Duplex B and that Mega Well relied on that misrepresentation; Centaline acted as agent of Bright Gold for marketing and communicating roof information so Bright Gold is vicariously liable; Mega Well is entitled to rescind the PSPA and SPA and to damages in lieu (HK$3,050,000) as alternative; WKLL did not breach their duty of care and Mega Well's counterclaim against WKLL was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Mega Well on counterclaim against Bright Gold and Centaline; SPA rescinded; Bright Gold's original claim dismissed; Mega Well's counterclaim against WKLL dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of Mega Well's counterclaim against Bright Gold and Centaline
  • It is declared that Mega Well is entitled to rescind and has rescinded the PSPA and the SPA